REVIEW 1 cited by
DisDP: Disaggregating Compute, Network, and Storage for Model-Sharded Data-Parallel Training
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Model-sharded data parallelism (MSDP), e.g., ZeRO, evenly shards the model states across all GPUs, and thus has been widely adopted by LLM pre-training, such as Llama and DeepSeek, due to its low GPU memory capacity requirement. However, MSDP introduces severe overhead from additional network communication collectives (i.e., AllGather and ReduceScatter). Although the collectives themselves only occupy fewer than 10% of GPU SMs, their execution time increases by 41% due to the serial execution of aggregated CPU/GPU-managed compute (i.e., GEMM), network (i.e., NCCL), and storage (i.e., optimizer states). To this end, we present DisDP, a fully disaggregated distributed data-parallel architecture that first fully disaggregates compute, network, and storage for MSDP, such that GPUs only focus on the computing part, and thus the GPU utilization is maximized. The key idea is 1) fully offloading collectives to SmartNICs and SmartSwitch to avoid interference between GEMM kernels and collective kernels, and 2) fully offloading storage to a SmartSwitch-enhanced parameter server that allows a single PS to serve massive workers with linear scalability. DisDP on 8 distributed GPUs outperforms the state-of-the-art training systems by 3.98x when training on a 175B model, validating the efficiency of disaggregation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
SNI-GNN: SmartNIC-Assisted Full-Graph GNN Training with In-Network Embedding Prediction
In-network linear-trend prediction on SmartNICs reduces communication in multi-server full-graph GNN training by 21 to 45 percent with under 1 percent accuracy loss.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.